Thanks, Dan, for the critical thinking that obviously went into that broad generalization.   <sarc off>

If you had been following the progression of events here, you'd have seen that support for Romney didn't coalesce (too late?) until recently.  In fact, most seem to have first favored Thompson, Hunter or Duncan.

Because McCain had been all but written off, I think he was largely ignored by fractured conservatives last fall.  That allowed him to slip in through the moderate and liberal wing.

Currently, I don't think there are many, if any, Romney supporters here who think he's the perfect candidate.  Instead, they are clear-eyed about a candidate who seems to be no more than the best of what's been given us to choose between.

"He was a would-be sharp operator who lacked for the satisfaction of his ambition only the quality of sharpness..." -Michael Chabon

Islamic Religious Services Will Be Held at the Firing Range At 0800 Daily.

Funkdome -- my sentiments exactly.

I watched Romney go off on McCain this morning without a rebuttal. I guess CNN is biased for Romney.

First off, even if this were the case, it would still not be media bias. Free air time? He's a presidential front runner -- are they not supposed to be interviewing him? But I did not read this take at all in the blog. The blog isn't taking any issue about the baiting questions of Matt Lauer. Rather, all the ire (including nearly all the responses thus far) is directed at the responses of the Senator from Arizona, who, last time I checked, isn't a pundit for any of the MSM outlets. And for what it's worth, my recollection is that the former governor of Mass. hasn't been exactly gracious in his interviews, either.

We all know the issues that McCain unpopular with Rush, et al. The media is loving the dissention in the ranks, with Rush and his dittoheads playing the role of "useful idiot" usually held by liberals.

Romney ran as a liberal in Mass, and now he's had a "change of heart" and he is the "true conservative"? Give me a break.

The entire blog is dedicated to the responses of McCain (even directing us to pay particular attention to his body language), not the MSM fawning over him -- I've read plenty of posts that discuss the MSM fawning over liberals, and this ain't one of them. Who was interviewing him again? Oh, that's right, Matt Lauer. Nice try.

Good thing you are incapable of convincing anyone of anything. We've all seen your stupid links over and over again. You think we don't do research ourselves. Your arrogance is embarassing.

I wouldn't waste my time trying to convince you of anything. Rush has told you what to do and you behave like the bleating sheep you are.

I also voted for McCain specifically to send a message to partisan losers. So in a way, I guess you did convince me. LOL.

You are so naive to think McCain can beat Hillary? Only two candidates can and that was Rudy and Romney. Why do you think the MSM was relentlessly attacking Romney? Have you not figured it out yet? Any conservative can beat Obama and McCain is no conservative. You have no idea what is going to happen. All those moderates and liberals voting for McCain will vote for the Dem nomination. This is Bob Dole 2.0

Get ready for it sucker now answer the question...

Why do you want to fight Global Warming?

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

"As someone who advocated the war, I am not going to stab the troops in the back because Rush and Coulter tell me too."

I've lost count of how many times in this thread alone you have referenced Rush telling people what to do, and how his listeners don't think for themselves, etc.

Do you truly believe that the only reason people don't agree with your choice of candidates is because they blindly follow somehow else's thoughts?  That is one weak argument.

My state primary isn't until May so I might not have much of a say in this process (which is a problem unto itself), but I will go and write in a candidate if McCain is the only one left on the ballot, and it is NOT because Rush Limbaugh told me to.  I've said from Day One that illegation immigration was my #1 issue this time around, and with the McCain-Kennedy disaster, he lost all credibility for me.

Just the other day on this forum I read a comment (and to the person who wrote it, I apologize but cannot recall who it posted it) that said Rush Limbaugh doesn't tell people WHAT to think, he simply verbalizes what people are already thinking.  I agree with that assessment.

Perhaps it is the McCain supporters who are blindly following what the media are telling them.  How does that one go over for you?

Yep, Romney would lose to Obama as well as Hillary, and I don't even think it would be close (I guess that would be one positive -- we wouldn't have to endure the 2000 Al "count-all-the-votes" Gore legal sideshow), even though he would have all our of votes.

A fraction of moderate voters is necessary for anyone to become president -- this goes for both sides. Believe it or not, Hillary and Obama will be courting that vote, and there are plenty of left-wing radicals who will thus think they are closet Republicans (sounds like a familiar theme) -- NB has even pointed this out recently. It's called political strategy -- you can't do anything for any cause, be it conservative or liberal, if you don't win. There is an anti-Republican (read: conservative) sentiment out there, and Romney just doesn't have what it takes to sway 'em.

I have to open Word and explorer and cut and paste and I screwed up. I think this should work. The article is on Boomberg.com

McCain has the most help and is second only to Hillary in lobbyist donations.

McCain
in bed with Lobbyists